Github user ijokarumawak commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2397#discussion_r161131729
--- Diff:
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-extension-utils/nifi-reporting-utils/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/reporting/util/provenance/ProvenanceEventConsumer.java
---
@@ -235,6 +251,32 @@ private boolean isFilteringEnabled() {
for (ProvenanceEventRecord provenanceEventRecord :
provenanceEvents) {
final String componentId =
provenanceEventRecord.getComponentId();
+ if (!componentIdsExclude.isEmpty()) {
+ if (componentIdsExclude.contains(componentId)) {
+ continue;
+ }
+ // If we aren't excluding it based on component ID,
let's see if this component has a parent process group IDs
+ // that is being excluded
+ if (componentMapHolder == null) {
+ continue;
+ }
+ final String processGroupId =
componentMapHolder.getProcessGroupId(componentId,
provenanceEventRecord.getComponentType());
+ if (StringUtils.isEmpty(processGroupId)) {
+ continue;
--- End diff --
Do we want to skip events if processGroupId is not found for one? We
probably better to apply the exclude rule if a processGroupId is known,
different from inclusion rules. Unknown should NOT be filtered out by exclusion
rules IMO.
---
